Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral value by specifying the data is 'live' and includes 'recent activity', which is not implicit from the annotations. It gives enough context for a diagnostic read operation, though it doesn't discuss edge cases or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The endpoint and core behavior are front-loaded, and the purpose ('for troubleshooting') is tucked at the end. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, two-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description states what the call returns (live status and recent activity) and the endpoint. It covers the essentials. It could expand on what 'activity' includes, but given the simplicity and the annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the result at a high level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes the URI pattern with placeholder names (:idOrAddress, :botInstanceId) and the parameter names themselves are self-explanatory. However, the description does not explicitly define what counts as an agent ID/address or bot instance ID, leaving some interpretation to the agent. It adds some value but does not fully explain parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Diagnose') and resource ('BotInstance') and includes the endpoint, making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ethora-bot-instance-status by mentioning 'recent activity' and 'troubleshooting', so an agent can tell it apart even without opening other schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('for troubleshooting') and what it returns ('live XMPP/ai-service status and recent activity'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., ethora-bot-instance-status) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.